Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds consequences they cannot express: zernio disconnection is all-or-nothing across every social account, scheduled posts stop publishing until each account is reconnected in the Mark app, and CMS disconnection leaves mapped channels with failing queued publishes. This is exactly the blast-radius detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the two provider-specific consequences, then related tools. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the provider-specific warnings are split awkwardly across paragraphs and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the destructive scope, the downstream effects on publishing, and the related tools to consult — everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents connectionId as 'Provider from list_connections, e.g. zernio.' The description adds no new syntax, format, or constraint beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disconnects an integration') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming the affected provider (zernio) and the alternative tools (list_connections, list_channels, update_connection_settings). An agent can distinguish this from sync_connections or update_connection_settings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to call list_channels first to preview which social accounts would be removed, and states a hard boundary: 'Connecting accounts cannot be done from the agent.' That is a clear when-to-use, a pre-check alternative, and a when-not, all named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.